The plaintiff instituted this action against Brooks Pharmacy in United States District Court District of Connecticut, alleging Age discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. Â§46a-60(a) et. seq. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Â§ 621 et. seq. At all times the defendants denied the plaintiffsâ€™ allegations. At the completion of discovery, defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants' motion was granted by the Honorable Warren Eginton, in his Order dated, January 17, 2008.

Karen Smigel v State of Connecticut Insurance Department

Practice Area:

Litigation

Date:

Dec 18, 2007

Outcome:

The matter was settled prior to trial.

Description:

The plaintiff instituted this action against defendant in United States District Court District of Connecticut, alleging discrimination on the basis of her sex and age in the terms, conditions and privileges of employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Â§2000e et seq, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Â§621, et seq., and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, C.G.S. Â§46a-60(a) et seq. More specifically, despite plaintiffâ€™s qualifications and experience, the defendant promoted a younger male employee for the position of Insurance Program Manager in violation of the aforementioned statutes. At all times the defendant denied plaintiffs' allegations. The matter was settled prior to trial by agreement of the parties, the terms of which are confidential.

David Donovan v. Anderson Merchandisers

Practice Area:

Employment and labor

Date:

Aug 20, 2007

Outcome:

The matter was amicably settled prior to trial.

Description:

The plaintiff instituted this action against defendant in United States District Court District of Connecticut, alleging unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Â§201 et seq. (â€œFLSAâ€) and Connecticut General Statutes Â§Â§ 31-68 and 31-72. At all times the defendant denied plaintiffs allegations. The parties reached an an amicable settlement of this dispute, the terms of which are confidential.

Suzanne Desrochers v. Brooks Pharmacy

Practice Area:

Sexual harassment

Date:

Sep 18, 2006

Outcome:

Dismissed following investigation

Description:

Complainant alleged that she was sexually harassed by her male Store Manager in violation Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act, 21 V.S.A. Â§495-496, as enforced by the State of Vermontâ€™s Office of Attorney General, Vermont Civil Rights Unit. Following investigation by the Vermont Civil Rights Unit, the matter was dismissed on September 18, 2006.

NAMCO, LLC v Anthony Giovanni

Practice Area:

Consumer protection

Date:

Aug 15, 2006

Outcome:

Plaintiff Judgment in the amount of $53,093.21

Description:

To finance his cocaine habit, the defendant engaged in a fraudulent credit memo scheme in which he created bogus credit memos and exchanged them for cash which he brazenly removed from the plaintiff's cash registers. All told this scheme netted the defendant approximately $47,000 before being discovered by the plaintiff. On August 15, 2006, the Honorable Peter A. Velis entertained Plaintiffâ€™s Motion for Assessment of Damages awarding the plaintiff $46,843.21 for the stolen merchandise and cash, $6,000.00 for the cost of securing an independent agency to investigate defendantâ€™s unlawful action, and court costs related to instituting this action.

The plaintiff instituted this action against defendant in United States District Court District of Connecticut, alleging sex and pregnancy discrimination and violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Â§2000e, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Â§1981a(b); Connecticut Fair Employment Practice Act, CONN. GEN. STAT. Â§Â§46(a) â€“ 81 et seq. and The Pregnancy Discrimination Act. At all times the defendant denied plaintiffs allegations. The parties reached an an amicable settlement of this dispute, the terms of which are confidential.

Cooney v North American Marketing Company d/b/a NAMCO

Practice Area:

Discrimination

Date:

May 19, 2006

Outcome:

Defendant's Verdict

Description:

Following a 5 day jury trial in which the plaintiff alleged that he was the victim of Race Discrimination, the jury deliberated for less than 2 hours before finding for the defendant.

Angela Ventola vs. Brooks Pharmacy

Practice Area:

Discrimination

Date:

Oct 31, 2005

Outcome:

Dismissed after investigation

Description:

The complainant alleged pregancy discrimination in violation of of G.L. ch. 151B Section 4 Paragraph 1, 4, and 16 and ADA, Title VII. More specifically, Ms. Ventola alleges that she was forced to â€œcontinuously lift heavy boxes of merchandise for shelvingâ€ and when she â€œcomplained about her supervisors conduct nothing was done.â€ Brooks Pharmacy, after investigating this complaint concluded that Ms. Ventolaâ€™s accusations were false. Upon investigation by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Commission Against Discrimination, the matter was dismissed.

Meredith Mello v Brooks Pharmacy

Practice Area:

Sexual harassment

Date:

Feb 02, 2004

Outcome:

Settled on the eve of trial.

Description:

The plaintiff instituted this action against Brooks Pharmacy and two individual defendants in Superior Court, Essex, MA alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and discrimination based on sex, in violation of; M.G.L. c. 151B. At all times the defendants denied the plaintiffsâ€™ allegations. The Superior Court dismissed the two individual named party defendants following oral argument thereby leaving Brooks Pharmacy as the only defendant in this Civil Action. In or about the eve of trial, the matter was amicably settled via agreement of the parties, the terms of which are confidential.

Lilith Caulfield v. Brooks Pharmacy

Practice Area:

Sexual harassment

Date:

Jun 18, 2003

Outcome:

Dismissed after investigation.

Description:

The complainant filed a charge with the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights alleging discrimination based upon her sex and unlawful retaliation. More specifically, complainant alleges that the respondent engaged in discriminatory conduct in violation of RSA 354-A, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.